You are not logged in.
For SpaceNut .... this new topic is specifically about the (relatively new) focus in fusion research, called "lattice fusion" to distinguish it from other attempts to create usable fusion energy.
The essence of the idea (as I understand it) is to pack a metal lattice with Deuterium, so that the Deuterium is far more dense than is possible with magnetic confinement.
Apparently NASA has invested in the reported research:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-doubles … 00418.html
The topic was brought up recently in another topic, but I thought it deserves its own topic.
Title revised 2025/05/30 to include the word "confinement"
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
It's just another word for cold fusion or LENR ("low energy nuclear reactions"). There are several teams working on the technology around the world. I think something real is being chased here but it is something rather elusive. In the early days of electricity being identified as a set of related phenomena scientists struggled to make sense of how it worked. Something similar may be happening with LENR.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
For Louis re #2
Thank you for your interesting evaluation of the "Lattice Fusion" concept.
I have no idea if you are right or not, so I submitted a contact form request to NASA Glenn, asking if they could possibly point to a publication that would explain the difference, if there is one.
I suppose it is possible that the entire LENR controversy caused some serious research to happen. The impression I've had for a while is that the entire episode was so poorly received that anyone having anything to do with it was tainted.
To help out, if you feel like pursuing this a bit, please see if you can find an explanation (suitable for publication is this forum) of what LENR is, assuming it ** is ** anything at all.
Edit#1: I got a reply from NASA Glenn ... it was (apparently) a reply from an AI ... no human could have made such a mistake ....
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the NASA Glenn Research Center. Your inquiry about a meteorite was forward to our office. With the center being closed to the public due to COVID 19, would it be possible to send some pictures of what you found? We would be happy to forward the pictures to the right person to see if it can be identified.
Best Regards,
NASA Glenn Research Center Comment Team
That's disappointing, but it's the world we live in.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This paper is actually 3 years old. It discusses the use of lattice confinement fusion as a neutron source, driving fast-fission of thorium or depleted uranium.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up … _FINAL.pdf
This has enormous implications for the future use of nuclear power in space travel and on Earth itself. It means that nuclear reactors can be built using abundant non-enriched uranium and can achieve high burnup without reprocessing.
For a nuclear thermal rocket or Mars surface nuclear reactor, it allows the launch of non-radioactive payloads. Additionally, a Mars surface reactor can use native Martian uranium as fuel without need for enrichment. It will achieve high burnup and will not depend upon reprocessing.
Without need for HALEU or HEU, nuclear thermal rockets will be much easier to deploy. We could also build fission fragment engines with exhaust velocity as high as 4%C. That puts the nearest stars in reach of slow interstellar probes. At 4%C, Proxima Centauri is only a century away. The exciting thing is that this is something that could be done relatively soon.
Last edited by Calliban (2025-05-30 07:14:00)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
Thanks (again) to Calliban for finding and posting #4, about a paper presented in 2022.
I asked Google if there is any follow up, and it appears there most definitely is!
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science … nt-fusion/
This paper is long and packed with images to support the text. In scanning the document, I get the impression the work that Calliban reported has led to robust studies to apply the technique for deep space missions. I am hoping NewMars members will have time to read some of the paper, and report here on what is happening.
If the output is heat for a Stirling engine, then the power developed will be modest, but if that power lasts for many years in deep space, that would be an attractive replacement for radioactive power systems that are controlled for security reasons.
Question ... can this technology extend to home heating?
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this post, Google's Gemini 2.5 (the paid version on free trial) took a look at the Pons and Fleishman original "cold fusion" discovery, and compared it to the solid work done at NASA Glenn Research Center (and no doubt other comparable institutions)
The key element of the analysis is the revelation that NASA Glenn primes the pump with energetic electrons. Pons and Fleishman used simple electrolysis which certainly puts electrons in motion, but (I suspect) at a much lower energy level than the NASA researchers may be using. I am interested in seeing if this work (taken collectively) can lead to practical home heating systems that use natural Uranium ore or comparable radioactive material to produce enough heat. Deuterium would appear to be an input to the process, but at this point, I can't tell if the Deuterium in "loaded" on a one-time basis or if it can be renewed periodically?
Gemini 2.5 on Lattice Confinement Fusion
Conversation with Gemini
Lattice Confinement Fusion -Hi Gemini! A member of our small international forum discovered a paper published by NASA in 2022, about Lattice Confinement Fusion. I found a paper from 2024 showing that NASA Glenn Research Center appears to be seriously studying lattice confinement fusion for deep space missions. The heat generated would (apparently) be sufficient to drive a Stirling Engine with deep space as the cold end. My question for you today is to compare this new research to the original discovery by Pons and Fleishman that was given an unfriendly response when it first was published.
***
It's fascinating to see NASA's serious investigation into Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF) for deep space missions, especially considering the historical context of "cold fusion" research. While both touch upon the idea of achieving nuclear reactions in condensed matter, there are crucial distinctions between NASA's LCF research and the original claims of Pons and Fleischmann.Here's a comparison:
Pons and Fleischmann's "Cold Fusion" (1989)
The Claim: In 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature (hence "cold fusion") in a simple electrolytic cell containing heavy water and a palladium electrode. They reported observing anomalous excess heat, along with small amounts of nuclear byproducts like neutrons and tritium.The Response: The scientific community initially showed immense interest due to the potential for a clean, abundant energy source. However, rapid attempts to replicate their results largely failed. Crucially, many replication attempts did not observe the reported excess heat or, more importantly, the expected nuclear byproducts. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the experimental methodology, data interpretation, and the initial announcement being made via a press conference rather than peer-reviewed publication.
The Controversy: The inability to consistently replicate the results, coupled with methodological criticisms, led to widespread skepticism and a strong backlash from the mainstream scientific community. "Cold fusion" became largely discredited and, for many years, research in this area was considered fringe or even pseudoscientific. While some researchers continued to pursue what they termed "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR), it remained outside the mainstream.
NASA's Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF)
The Concept: NASA's LCF research, as indicated in the 2022 and 2024 papers from Glenn Research Center, proposes triggering nuclear fusion within the lattice structure of certain metals (like deuterated palladium or erbium) when subjected to energetic electron bombardment or other stimuli. The key difference from traditional "hot" fusion is that it aims to reduce the Coulomb barrier (the electrostatic repulsion between positively charged nuclei) through the screening effect of lattice electrons, allowing fusion to occur at much lower overall temperatures than in a plasma.
Key Distinctions from Pons and Fleischmann:
Mechanism: While both involve hydrogen isotopes within a metal lattice, NASA's LCF research specifically points to a different triggering mechanism (e.g., energetic electrons, phonon-nuclear coupling) and a theoretical framework that accounts for the screening effect. Pons and Fleischmann's mechanism was less clearly defined and widely criticized.
Byproducts: NASA's research looks for specific nuclear byproducts (like neutrons) and attempts to characterize their energy, which is crucial for validating nuclear reactions. The issues with Pons and Fleischmann's nuclear byproduct measurements were a major point of contention.
Replicability and Peer Review: NASA's research is being conducted within established scientific institutions (NASA Glenn Research Center) and is published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Physical Review C), indicating a commitment to rigorous scientific methodology and transparency. This is a significant departure from the initial communication and subsequent replicability issues of Pons and
Fleischmann's work.Applications: NASA's interest is specifically in developing compact, scalable nuclear energy sources for deep space missions, particularly for powering probes for icy world exploration. This pragmatic application-driven research often leads to more focused and verifiable results.
Higher Energies (Relatively): While not "hot fusion," NASA's LCF work acknowledges that these reactions occur at "locally hot but globally cold" conditions, with deuteron ion temperatures reaching up to 2.1 keV, which is significantly higher than room temperature and implies different underlying physics than implied by "cold fusion." Some papers even describe it as a "special form of hot fusion."
The Stirling Engine Connection
The idea of using LCF to drive a Stirling Engine is a practical application. A Stirling engine converts heat energy into mechanical work by cyclic compression and expansion of a gas at different temperatures. Deep space, with its extremely low ambient temperatures, would provide an ideal "cold end" for such an engine, maximizing its efficiency. This highlights NASA's focus on engineering viable power solutions for space exploration, rather than just demonstrating a phenomenon.
Conclusion
While the term "lattice confinement fusion" might evoke echoes of the cold fusion controversy due to its shared element of nuclear reactions in condensed matter, NASA's current research is distinct. It is rooted in a more developed theoretical understanding of electron screening and is pursuing a more rigorous, verifiable scientific approach with clear applications in mind. The difference lies in the scientific rigor, the proposed mechanisms, the focus on repeatable and quantifiable results, and the integration into established scientific research pathways. The re-emergence of serious research in this area, under the moniker of LCF, suggests that the initial outright dismissal of all "cold fusion" possibilities might have been premature, and that there are indeed interesting nuclear phenomena occurring in condensed matter that warrant further scientific exploration.Sources
***
Thank you for this clear exposition of the differences between Pons and Fleishman and the evolution of the field of study. It appears that this might be an example of Serendipity, in which an observation leads to discovery of a new aspect of the physical universe not previously recognized. I see in your presentation an element that I have not seen elsewhere. The use of high energy electrons to encourage fusion certainly adds credibility to the report of success. To me that suggests a bright person thought deeply about the implications of the accidental discovery by Pons and Fleishman, and that deep thought (based upon deep education) led to understanding of the mechanism.
***You've hit on a very insightful point regarding the evolution of this field and the role of "deep thought based upon deep education." Your observation about the use of high-energy electrons in NASA's LCF research is spot on, and it highlights a crucial distinction from the initial "cold fusion" claims.
Here's a breakdown of why your points are so pertinent:
Serendipity and the Scientific Method
You're absolutely right to call the initial Pons and Fleischmann observation a potential example of serendipity. Serendipitous discoveries are not uncommon in science, where an unexpected observation or anomaly can open up entirely new avenues of research. The challenge, however, is what happens after the serendipitous discovery.
The scientific method demands:
Replication: Can the observation be consistently reproduced by independent researchers?
Verification: Are the reported phenomena truly what they appear to be, and are measurements accurate?
Theoretical Framework: Can a plausible mechanism explain the observed phenomena?
Pons and Fleischmann struggled profoundly with the first two points, which is where the controversy arose.
The Evolution from "Accidental Discovery" to "Understood Mechanism"
This is where the "bright person thought deeply about the implications" comes in. The trajectory from the initial "cold fusion" claims to NASA's LCF research is a compelling example of how science, even when faced with highly controversial initial findings, can sometimes self-correct and advance.
While the initial "cold fusion" claims faced immense skepticism and rejection, a small contingent of researchers (often operating outside mainstream funding) continued to investigate what they termed "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR). These researchers, often with backgrounds in condensed matter physics, nuclear engineering, and electrochemistry, continued to probe the anomalies, refine experimental techniques, and propose alternative explanations.
The "Deep Thought" involves:
Re-evaluating the anomalies: Instead of simply dismissing the excess heat claims, some researchers considered: If excess heat was truly produced, what might be the underlying nuclear or energetic process, even if it wasn't "fusion as we know it"?
Considering the condensed matter environment: This is crucial. Traditional fusion research focuses on overcoming the Coulomb barrier in a plasma. But what happens to nuclear interactions inside a solid lattice? The dense electron cloud within a metal can screen the positive charges of nuclei, effectively reducing the electrostatic repulsion. This concept of electron screening or electron shielding is a well-established phenomenon in condensed matter physics.
Proposing alternative energy inputs: Pons and Fleischmann used electrolysis. But what if other forms of energy input, specifically targeted at the lattice or its constituent atoms, could be more effective or provide clearer evidence? This is where the idea of using energetic electrons comes into play in NASA's LCF research.
Why high-energy electrons? High-energy electrons can impart momentum and energy to the deuterium nuclei within the lattice, potentially overcoming the reduced Coulomb barrier more effectively than simple thermal agitation or electrochemical processes alone. They can also create localized energetic "hot spots" within the lattice without heating the bulk material to millions of degrees. This is a much more targeted approach to inducing nuclear reactions within a condensed matter environment.
Focusing on Nuclear Signatures: A major failing of the original "cold fusion" claims was the inconsistent and often questionable detection of nuclear byproducts (neutrons, tritium, helium-4). The "deep thought" involved recognizing that for any claim of nuclear reaction, robust and unambiguous detection of expected nuclear signatures is paramount. NASA's research, and much of the more recent LENR/LCF work, places a strong emphasis on precise and verifiable detection of these byproducts.
In essence, the "bright person" (or more likely, a collective of bright, persistent people over decades) didn't just accept or reject Pons and Fleischmann's claims. Instead, they took the initial, perhaps poorly executed, observations and asked:
"Could there be something real here, even if it's not what was originally claimed?"
"If so, what established physics principles (like electron screening, lattice vibrations, or localized energy deposition) might explain it?"
"How could we design experiments that are more robust, provide clearer evidence, and lead to a verifiable mechanism?"
This iterative process of hypothesis generation, experimental design, and critical evaluation is the hallmark of good science. NASA's involvement, with its rigorous engineering and scientific standards, further legitimizes this evolution, moving the discussion from "fringe science" back into the realm of mainstream scientific inquiry, albeit with a healthy dose of skepticism that is always warranted in new fields.
Sources
***I see that your management team has allowed me to experience 2.5 Flash version of your instantiation. I am going to be publishing your product here in our forum, with due acknowledgement. While I'm away, best wishes for similar success as you attempt to assist all your other customers!
***That's wonderful to hear you're finding the 2.5 Flash version of Gemini helpful and plan to share it with your forum! We appreciate you acknowledging our product.
We're always striving to improve and assist our users effectively, and your positive feedback is truly encouraging.
Best wishes to you as well, and we hope you continue to have great success in your forum discussions!
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
as an aside (for the NewMars audience) ....
Energetic electrons are available for free in deep space. The can be collected and harnessed as a byproduct of a radiation shielding method first proposed in the 1970's during the heyday of the work of Gerard K. O'Neill.
An electrostatic shield with a positive polarity can deflect positively charged ions with the side effect of accelerating electrons that are drawn toward the shield. A way to use those electrons would be handy.
The implication of Gemini's report on NASA Glenn's (apparent) use of high energy electrons to stimulate Lattice Confinement Fusion is that potentially, the high energy deep space electrons might stimulate LCF while contributing to the heating effect that is the purpose of the design.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this sequence I asked Gemini to evaluate the potential of LCF for home heating. It appears this is a long way off, and in any case, the current research efforts are NOT achieving energy breakeven.
Gemini on Home Heating
Conversation with Gemini
Lattice Fusion for Home Heating -Hi Gemini! A few minutes ago (my time) you provided a helpful summary of the state of play of Lattice Confinement Fusion, with focus on work done in recent years at NASA Glenn Research Center. This next question is going to stretch your capabilities, so if you need to pass on the opportunity I'll understand. Can this technology be developed for home heating? What is the nature on the electron accelerator that provides needed energy to encourage fusion and fission events? If natural uranium or thorium is consumed, is the radiation protection needed for a home installation practical? Can nuclear waste be consumed using this technology? Finally, is Deuterium consumed and can it be replenished while the machine is operating, or does it have to be pressed into the material at a specialized facility?
***Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF) is a fascinating area of research, particularly with the recent work by NASA Glenn Research Center. While it holds promise for various applications, its development for practical home heating is a complex matter with several considerations.
Can this technology be developed for home heating?
The direct development of LCF for individual home heating is highly speculative and faces significant hurdles. Current LCF research is still in its fundamental stages, focusing on demonstrating net energy gain and understanding the underlying physics. Scaling this technology down to a safe, efficient, and cost-effective residential unit is a monumental task.
Here's why it's a long shot for individual home heating in the near future:
Power Output and Efficiency: While LCF has shown promise in generating nuclear reactions, the reaction rates need to be substantially increased to achieve appreciable power levels suitable for heating a home.
The current energy output is very low, making it impractical for large-scale energy production.
Complexity and Cost: The experimental setups used in LCF research are complex and expensive.Simplifying and miniaturizing this technology for mass production and residential installation would require immense engineering breakthroughs.
Safety and Regulation: Even with lower levels of radiation compared to traditional fission, any nuclear technology requires rigorous safety protocols and regulatory oversight. Achieving a level of safety acceptable for widespread home use would be a major undertaking.
Heat Transfer and Conversion: The energy released in LCF is primarily in the form of heat, gamma rays, and neutrons. Efficiently converting this energy into usable heat for a home (e.g., through a hot water system) would require robust heat exchange mechanisms.
It's more likely that if LCF proves viable for energy generation, it would first be developed for larger-scale applications like power plants or specialized industrial uses, similar to how other nuclear technologies have progressed.
***
What is the nature of the electron accelerator that provides needed energy to encourage fusion and fission events?
***
In the NASA Glenn LCF experiments, a dynamitron electron-beam accelerator is used. Here's how it works:Electron Beam Generation: The accelerator generates a high-energy electron beam.
Bremsstrahlung Radiation: This electron beam hits a tantalum target, producing high-energy gamma rays (bremsstrahlung radiation). The gamma rays have energies typically around 2.2-2.9 MeV.
Photodissociation: These high-energy gamma rays then irradiate the deuterated metal (e.g., titanium deuteride or erbium deuteride). The gamma rays strike deuterium nuclei (deuterons), causing them to photodissociate, splitting them into a proton and a neutron.
Reaction Cascade: These energetic neutrons and protons then collide with other deuterons in the lattice, boosting their energy and initiating further fusion or stripping reactions.
Essentially, the electron accelerator is an external energy source that kicks off the chain of nuclear reactions within the metal lattice.
If natural uranium or thorium is consumed, is the radiation protection needed for a home installation practical?
If LCF were to consume natural uranium or thorium (which it can do as a hybrid fusion-fast-fission system, as suggested by some NASA research for space applications), the radiation protection required for a home installation would be extremely challenging, if not impractical, with current technology.
Here's why:
Fission Products: The fission of uranium or thorium produces a wide range of highly radioactive fission products. These isotopes emit various forms of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, and neutrons) and can have very long half-lives, posing a long-term hazard.
Neutron Flux: While LCF is primarily a fusion process, if it's designed to also consume fissionable materials, it would generate a significant neutron flux. Neutrons are highly penetrating and require substantial shielding (e.g., thick concrete, water, or specialized materials) to protect occupants.
Containment and Security: Any system handling radioactive materials, especially those that undergo fission, requires robust containment to prevent release of radioactive substances and strict security measures to prevent diversion or misuse. These requirements are far beyond what's practical for a typical home.
The current focus of LCF is on deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion, which produces less radioactive byproducts than D-T fusion and significantly less than fission. Even with D-D fusion, there are still neutrons produced that would require shielding.
Can nuclear waste be consumed using this technology?
Potentially, yes, but it's a very advanced concept. Some research into LCF (specifically the "Lattice Confinement Fusion Fast-Fission Hybrid Reactor" concept from NASA) explores the possibility of using neutrons generated from LCF to fission materials like depleted uranium or thorium, and even potentially spent nuclear fuel rods.
The idea is that the fusion neutrons could "burn" long-lived radioactive isotopes in nuclear waste, transmuting them into shorter-lived or stable isotopes, thereby reducing the volume and radioactivity of nuclear waste. However, this is still a highly theoretical and experimental application, far from practical implementation.
Is Deuterium consumed and can it be replenished while the machine is operating, or does it have to be pressed into the material at a specialized facility?
Deuterium is consumed during the LCF process.
As for replenishment:
Consumption: Deuterium atoms (deuterons) are indeed consumed as they undergo fusion reactions within the lattice.
Replenishment: The current LCF experiments involve "deuterating" the metal (e.g., erbium or titanium) by loading it with deuterium atoms. While the material can hold a very high density of deuterium, it's not clear if replenishment can occur continuously while the machine is operating, or if it would require a shutdown and reloading process.
Specialized Facility vs. On-site: The initial loading of deuterium into the metal lattice is likely a process that would occur at a specialized facility, as it involves precise material preparation and saturation. For a home heating application, if continuous replenishment were required, it would likely involve some form of deuterium gas feed, but the specific engineering for this is yet to be developed. The current research focuses on the physics of the reaction, not the practicalities of a continuous fuel cycle for a commercial product.
In summary, while Lattice Confinement Fusion presents an intriguing avenue for future energy generation, its application for home heating is a distant prospect due to the significant scientific and engineering challenges that need to be overcome.
***
Sources
***
Thank you for this clarification of aspects of the subject for which the first session had insufficient time and space. May inquire if you can discover whether titanium and erbium were selected because of unique physical properties, or can other more common materials perform the lattice function?
***That's an excellent follow-up question, and it gets to the heart of why titanium and erbium are specifically chosen for Lattice Confinement Fusion (LCF).
***
The selection of titanium (Ti) and erbium (Er) for LCF experiments is not arbitrary; it's based on their unique physical and chemical properties that make them particularly suitable for this type of nuclear reaction. These properties relate primarily to their ability to:Absorb and hold large quantities of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium): Both titanium and erbium are known to form stable hydrides (or deuterides, in this case). This means their crystal lattice structures can incorporate and "confine" a very high density of deuterium atoms within the interstitial spaces of their metal lattice. This high density of deuterium is crucial because it increases the probability of fusion reactions occurring when the deuterons are energized. In fact, NASA research indicates these metals can pack deuterium a billion times denser than in tokamak reactors.
Provide electron screening: The electron sea within the metal lattice of titanium and erbium plays a critical role in LCF. The negatively charged electrons in the lattice help to "screen" or reduce the electrostatic repulsion (the Coulomb barrier) between the positively charged deuterium nuclei (deuterons). By reducing this repulsion, the deuterons can get closer to each other, significantly increasing the probability of tunneling through the barrier and undergoing fusion, even at what are considered ambient temperatures externally. This is a key distinguishing feature from traditional "hot fusion" approaches.
Stability and structural integrity: The chosen metals must maintain their structural integrity and the ability to hold the deuterium under the conditions of the experiment, including the photon irradiation and the subsequent nuclear reactions. While energetic events occur at the microscopic level, the bulk material needs to remain relatively stable.
Interaction with photons and neutrons: While the initial energy input comes from the electron accelerator producing gamma rays, the interaction of these gamma rays and the subsequent neutrons with the lattice material itself can also contribute to the process. For example, in some LCF concepts, the metal atoms can participate in "stripping reactions" where they capture a proton or neutron from an energetic deuteron, leading to transmutation and additional energy release.
Can other more common materials perform the lattice function?
While titanium and erbium have proven to be effective, the broader field of condensed matter nuclear science (which LCF is a part of) has explored other materials, particularly those that can absorb hydrogen isotopes.
Palladium (Pd): Historically, palladium was a prominent material in "cold fusion" research due to its exceptional ability to absorb hydrogen. However, the LCF approach by NASA is distinct from the original cold fusion claims, as it uses an external energy source (the electron accelerator) to initiate reactions.
While palladium can also serve as a lattice, the specific energy input and observed reactions in LCF make titanium and erbium the focus of the NASA research. Some researchers have also observed "anomalous heat" and potential fission products in palladium-silver alloys subjected to deuterium cycling, suggesting a broader range of possibilities for materials in these types of low-energy nuclear reactions.
Other hydrogen-absorbing metals: Other metals known to absorb hydrogen, such as zirconium (Zr), vanadium (V), and certain alloys, might theoretically possess some of the necessary properties. However, their specific crystal structures, electron densities, and interaction cross-sections with the particles involved in LCF would need to be rigorously investigated to determine their suitability.
Nanomaterials: Recent research also explores LCF scaling in nanomaterials. The unique surface area and quantum effects in nanoscale materials could potentially offer new avenues for enhancing deuterium loading and reaction rates.
In essence, the choice of titanium and erbium for NASA's LCF research is based on a specific set of optimized properties that enable the observed nuclear reactions under the given experimental conditions.
While the fundamental principles of high deuterium loading and electron screening are general, the exact efficiency and reaction pathways are highly dependent on the atomic structure and electronic properties of
the specific metal lattice used. Future research may indeed uncover other materials or material configurations that could also perform this function effectively.
***
Thanks for another helpful analysis of what might have been a difficult question, and for your clear presentation of the related facts, including the difficulty of moving from research into practical applications. To summarize what I ** think ** you reported, research appears to have shown that an electron beam can be used to initiate a chain reaction of fusion events in a lattice pumped full of Deuterium through a chemical process. Would it be reasonable to understand what has been discovered so far as a kind of "battery", able to release energy at a controlled rate (in the form of heat) for an extended period of time?
***You've captured the essence of the NASA LCF research very well! It is indeed about using an external electron beam (which generates gamma rays) to kick-start fusion and fission-like events within a metal lattice densely packed with deuterium.
Now, regarding your analogy of a "battery" that releases energy at a controlled rate for an extended period:
This is a reasonable analogy for the potential ultimate goal of LCF technology, but it's important to differentiate it from the current state of research.
Here's a breakdown:
Why the "Battery" Analogy is Apt for the Goal:
Contained Fuel: The deuterium is "stored" within the solid metal lattice, much like energy is stored within a battery's chemical components. This is a key departure from traditional fusion, which requires incredibly complex magnetic or inertial confinement of a plasma.
Controlled Release (Desired): The idea is that by controlling the input from the electron accelerator (or another triggering mechanism), you could control the rate of nuclear reactions and thus the heat output.
This is precisely what you want for a "battery" or a power source.
Heat as Energy Output: The primary form of energy released is heat, which is then converted into other usable forms (like electricity or direct heating). This mirrors how many energy storage and generation systems work.
"Solid State": The solid-state nature of the fuel and reactor could, in principle, lead to a more compact, potentially more robust, and inherently safer system compared to a plasma-based reactor.
Why it's NOT a "Battery" Yet (Current State of Research):
Not Self-Sustaining (Yet):
The most crucial difference is that the LCF reactions demonstrated so far are not self-sustaining.
They require a continuous energy input from the electron accelerator to keep the reactions going. For it to truly be a "battery," you'd want it to be able to "discharge" energy for a significant period after an initial "charge" (or kick-start), with the energy output exceeding the input. The current experiments have demonstrated nuclear reactions and energy release, but not net energy gain where the output significantly outweighs the total energy put in to run the accelerator and other systems.
Energy Input Required: The electron beam accelerator is itself an energy-intensive piece of equipment. While the LCF process creates energetic particles within the lattice, the overall system still requires more energy to operate than it produces in net usable form.
Reaction Rate and Power Output: While reactions are observed, the rate of these reactions and the total power output are still very low, far below what's needed for practical heating applications. A "battery" for home heating would need to produce kilowatts of thermal power continuously, not just small bursts of nuclear events.
"Chain Reaction" Nuance: You mentioned a "chain reaction of fusion events." While the emitted neutrons and protons from initial fusion events can indeed go on to cause more reactions (both fusion and stripping/fission-like events), it's not a runaway chain reaction in the sense of a critical fission reactor. The system is designed to be inherently sub-critical, meaning it won't melt down or explode if the external energy source is removed. This is a safety advantage, but it also means it's not "self-propagating" in the way a nuclear weapon or conventional critical reactor is.
In essence: The research is demonstrating the potential for a novel method of nuclear energy release from a solid-state fuel, which could one day lead to a "battery-like" power source. However, there's still a significant amount of work to be done to achieve net energy gain, sustained reactions, and the scalability required for practical applications like home heating.
***
Sources
***
Thanks for this additional clarification of the situation as of today. Since other approaches to the fusion problem have not achieved breakeven either, I hope that funders provide support for this line of research. And thanks for your reminder that the electron source is needed to produce gamma rays which are energetic enough to encourage fusion.
***You're absolutely right to highlight the ongoing challenge of achieving scientific breakeven (net energy gain) across all fusion approaches, and the importance of sustained funding for diverse research lines like LCF. It's a testament to the immense difficulty of harnessing fusion power that, despite decades of effort and billions of dollars, we're still striving for that crucial milestone.
Your accurate understanding of the role of the electron accelerator in generating the high-energy gamma rays to initiate the LCF process is spot on. That detail is key to distinguishing this approach from other forms of "cold fusion" or simply heating a plasma.
The potential advantages of LCF – particularly its solid-state nature, the ability to operate at much lower temperatures than hot fusion, and the potential for a self-contained, inherently safer system – make it a compelling avenue for continued exploration. The possibility of utilizing thorium and depleted uranium, and even potentially consuming nuclear waste, adds further layers of appeal, albeit at a much more advanced stage of development.
Let's hope that the scientific community and funding bodies recognize the unique promise of LCF and continue to support the dedicated researchers at NASA Glenn and elsewhere who are pushing the boundaries of this fascinating technology. The journey to practical, clean fusion energy is a long one, but every promising lead deserves thorough investigation.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Out of curiosity I asked Google about Erbium...
Search Labs | AI Overview
Erbium is readily available and relatively affordable compared to other rare earth elements. It's found in minerals like monazite and bastnaesite and extracted via ion exchange and solvent extraction. While it's not as rare as some other rare earth elements, its separation from other elements can be challenging, contributing to its cost. Prices fluctuate, but erbium is generally considered a cheaper member of the rare earth family.
Availability:
Erbium is found in minerals like monazite and bastnaesite.
Extraction methods include ion exchange and solvent extraction.
Erbium is considered one of the more abundant rare earth elements.
Price:
Prices vary, but erbium is generally a cheaper member of the rare earth family compared to others.
In 2018, a kilogram of erbium cost around $100.
A more refined, higher purity crystalline version costs significantly more.
Erbium metal (99.99%) can start at around $5 per kilogram.
While this is unclear, I got the impression Erbium may not be consumed in the processes that allow Deuterium to fuse in the Lattice Confinement experiments conducted at NASA and reported in 2024.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
There appears to be no near term resource constraint for erbium. And it is in theory reusable, but it may be difficult to handle after exposure to high neutron fluence in a nuclear reactor.
In truth, lattice confinement fusion is unlikely to be a viable pathway to a pure fusion based energy system. Only a fraction of the energy yield from fusion would contribute to producing another fusion event. What this technology would allow us to do is produce extra neutrons to drive a fission reaction. Fission produces high energy neutrons and intense gamma radiation, both of which could drive fusion in a lattice and improve the overall reactivity of a reactor. This could remove a lot of design constraints from fission systems. NASA clearly have this in mind for production of compact fission power sources for deep space missions. SpaceX could certainly use a compact nuclear power source that doesn't have bureacratic burdens associated with enriched uranium.
Last edited by Calliban (2025-05-30 14:35:32)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here